NISSAN LMP1...were they right?
Discussion
Dr JonboyG said:
I have been trying to give Cox the benefit of the doubt. But then he went and said this: https://twitter.com/IamDarrenCox/status/6229681080...
really?does he not know anything of history?
lestiq said:
RobGT81 said:
Sounds like they are ditching the mechanical flywheel entirely and going for batteries. Also sounds like some massive fundamental issues with the chassis.
http://www.racer.com/wec-le-mans/item/119517-pruet...
thanks for sharing, that was a really interesting read. They had a dreadful amount of issues they had to drive around no wonder they were struggling like they were!http://www.racer.com/wec-le-mans/item/119517-pruet...
Professional excuse at the extreme.
RobGT81 said:
Scuffers said:
what a complete load of cobblers that article is.
Professional excuse at the extreme.
Professional excuse at the extreme.
Don't think they will make the time up then? the reality is that no matter if the design concept has merit or not, the car they have now is not going to cut it, and the public statements are not exactly encouraging that they have a proper, engineered plan.
=
Don't think they will make the time up then? not if the people that wrote that crap have anything to do with it, no.
the reality is that no matter if the design concept has merit or not, the car they have now is not going to cut it, and the public statements are not exactly encouraging that they have a proper, engineered plan.please forgive my lack of engineering knowhow, but why was the article a load of cobblers? I take it you are coming from a position of knowhow? I read it as they had bucketloads of problems this is what they were. Are you saying that the article was just a bunch of excuses for poor design? I'm just interested
Scuffers said:
RobGT81 said:
Scuffers said:
what a complete load of cobblers that article is.
Professional excuse at the extreme.
Professional excuse at the extreme.
Don't think they will make the time up then? the reality is that no matter if the design concept has merit or not, the car they have now is not going to cut it, and the public statements are not exactly encouraging that they have a proper, engineered plan.
lestiq said:
please forgive my lack of engineering knowhow, but why was the article a load of cobblers? I take it you are coming from a position of knowhow? I read it as they had bucketloads of problems this is what they were. Are you saying that the article was just a bunch of excuses for poor design? I'm just interested
it's basically this, they are talking about major changes in implementation, then a smattering of big numbers to make it sound good.like I said, the concept may well have some merit, but the words being bandied about just do not inspire confidence, the current car was a total failure in just about every respect, now they are talking about fundamental changes in design, some how I can't see this not having a massive impact on the basic car design.
Scuffers said:
lestiq said:
please forgive my lack of engineering knowhow, but why was the article a load of cobblers? I take it you are coming from a position of knowhow? I read it as they had bucketloads of problems this is what they were. Are you saying that the article was just a bunch of excuses for poor design? I'm just interested
it's basically this, they are talking about major changes in implementation, then a smattering of big numbers to make it sound good.like I said, the concept may well have some merit, but the words being bandied about just do not inspire confidence, the current car was a total failure in just about every respect, now they are talking about fundamental changes in design, some how I can't see this not having a massive impact on the basic car design.
Scuffers said:
Dr JonboyG said:
I have been trying to give Cox the benefit of the doubt. But then he went and said this: https://twitter.com/IamDarrenCox/status/6229681080...
really?does he not know anything of history?
What a spoon.
Scuffers said:
lestiq said:
please forgive my lack of engineering knowhow, but why was the article a load of cobblers? I take it you are coming from a position of knowhow? I read it as they had bucketloads of problems this is what they were. Are you saying that the article was just a bunch of excuses for poor design? I'm just interested
it's basically this, they are talking about major changes in implementation, then a smattering of big numbers to make it sound good.like I said, the concept may well have some merit, but the words being bandied about just do not inspire confidence, the current car was a total failure in just about every respect, now they are talking about fundamental changes in design, some how I can't see this not having a massive impact on the basic car design.
The fact remains the car was hopeless at Le Mans in every department except top speed. We know it, they know and admit it but they know where they need to improve. As the article says, they were only a few KMH down on the fastest Audi so, at least at Le Mans, the aerodynamics are certainly sound. If they can fix the issues they have and their high downforce package is also good then I don't see why they can't catch up to Audi and Porsche. Note I say catch up, not beat.
MissChief said:
Sorry I keep forgetting that everyone on this section of PH is a Racecar Engineer who, miraculously, has yet to be hired by any race team or Engineering firm.
What makes you think that none of us race engineers on here have never been hired for a race team or engineering firm? It’s all very well being able to run at a reasonable speed at the end of the Mulsanne or the run into Arnage; and Nissan wouldn’t be the first to manage that – remember WR’s straight line specials? The car has been described as a ‘Le Mans special’ by the team and wasn’t able to qualify legitimately for its intended race. Heaven knows where it will be come Bahrain and COTA where downforce is at a premium. Having studied the R18’s behaviour at close quarters, I don’t see how on earth Nissan can get close to its apex speeds – high downforce package or not. In my years of studying cars at close quarters I’ve never seen anything that corners with the severity and conviction of the current R18. It’s just unbelievable. That means the balance of the WEC season will probably be a write-off.
The whole concept is utterly fascinating and should have potential but the car should never have raced this year. All the back-patting PR just makes it look even worse. If the team had come quietly and humbly then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I cheered David Brabham hounding the Audis during the opening at Le Mans in 2000 aboard the Panoz. I like different but I’m afraid the self-aggrandisement of Nissan’s programme has left me with zero sympathy to its current plight.
The whole concept is utterly fascinating and should have potential but the car should never have raced this year. All the back-patting PR just makes it look even worse. If the team had come quietly and humbly then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I cheered David Brabham hounding the Audis during the opening at Le Mans in 2000 aboard the Panoz. I like different but I’m afraid the self-aggrandisement of Nissan’s programme has left me with zero sympathy to its current plight.
chevronb37 said:
It’s all very well being able to run at a reasonable speed at the end of the Mulsanne or the run into Arnage; and Nissan wouldn’t be the first to manage that – remember WR’s straight line specials? The car has been described as a ‘Le Mans special’ by the team and wasn’t able to qualify legitimately for its intended race. Heaven knows where it will be come Bahrain and COTA where downforce is at a premium. Having studied the R18’s behaviour at close quarters, I don’t see how on earth Nissan can get close to its apex speeds – high downforce package or not. In my years of studying cars at close quarters I’ve never seen anything that corners with the severity and conviction of the current R18. It’s just unbelievable. That means the balance of the WEC season will probably be a write-off.
The whole concept is utterly fascinating and should have potential but the car should never have raced this year. All the back-patting PR just makes it look even worse. If the team had come quietly and humbly then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I cheered David Brabham hounding the Audis during the opening at Le Mans in 2000 aboard the Panoz. I like different but I’m afraid the self-aggrandisement of Nissan’s programme has left me with zero sympathy to its current plight.
Excellent knowledgeable post, The whole concept is utterly fascinating and should have potential but the car should never have raced this year. All the back-patting PR just makes it look even worse. If the team had come quietly and humbly then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I cheered David Brabham hounding the Audis during the opening at Le Mans in 2000 aboard the Panoz. I like different but I’m afraid the self-aggrandisement of Nissan’s programme has left me with zero sympathy to its current plight.
chevronb37 said:
All the back-patting PR just makes it look even worse. If the team had come quietly and humbly then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I cheered David Brabham hounding the Audis during the opening at Le Mans in 2000 aboard the Panoz. I like different but I’m afraid the self-aggrandisement of Nissan’s programme has left me with zero sympathy to its current plight.
The piece above really sums it up for me. The way the project was unrealistically hyped up throughout its development and with no climbdown when they surely knew it was not going to live up to its hype not to mention their continued bullcrap talk post leMans is surely damaging to the NISMO brand as it appears as though the company are satisfied with missing their goals by quite a distance. Very poor management.MissChief said:
Sorry I keep forgetting that everyone on this section of PH is a Racecar Engineer
Some of us are.MissChief said:
who, miraculously, has yet to be hired by any race team or Engineering firm.
And some of us have been.Sadly no one on here ever listens, so although I try occasionally to speak sense on here I generally give up after a while.
Ahonen said:
MissChief said:
Sadly no one on here ever listens, so although I try occasionally to speak sense on here I generally give up after a while.
I often have the same problem. Sadly knowledgeable people are often drowned out by others less knowledgeable.I just despair at all the rampant negativity being spouted endlessly. They've tried something different, believing the current regulations are written in such a way that they can use them to their advantage. Yes, they under performed at LM this year but they came because they said they would. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and look forward to them getting a handle on their issues. I would certainly love to bring this thread back up if they podium or win at LM next season.
MissChief said:
I often have the same problem. Sadly knowledgeable people are often drowned out by others less knowledgeable.
I just despair at all the rampant negativity being spouted endlessly. They've tried something different, believing the current regulations are written in such a way that they can use them to their advantage. Yes, they under performed at LM this year but they came because they said they would. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and look forward to them getting a handle on their issues. I would certainly love to bring this thread back up if they podium or win at LM next season.
no, this is where I draw the line.I just despair at all the rampant negativity being spouted endlessly. They've tried something different, believing the current regulations are written in such a way that they can use them to their advantage. Yes, they under performed at LM this year but they came because they said they would. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and look forward to them getting a handle on their issues. I would certainly love to bring this thread back up if they podium or win at LM next season.
They came up with a radical concept, no problem with that.
my issue with it is that it's sole upside appears to be it's fast in the straight line, great, what happens when you get to a corner? and then remember that most of the WEC series is not at LeMans.
then we get to the mechanical flywheel comments (really?), and how with a bit more downforce the will go round corners (downforce = drag so goodbye top speed).
Now, like I said before, the concept might have some merit, but pissing about like this is not really going to help get there, if they were serious, they should have been working on this quietly till they got to the point it was at least in the right ball-park, how much time and money did they spend on Lemans and it's associated marketing that should have been spend on development and testing?
Personally, I am still struggling to see the big advantage in what they have come up with, and even if they get it to work and be competitive, what's to say the goal posts have not moved in the meantime?
Has anybody attempted to quantify the compounded effect of not being able to run the hybrid system? To my knowledge, the associated issues added up to:
Lack of hybrid power for acceleration.
Lack of braking (noticeably worse than GTs) despite next line.
Bigger mechanical brakes, so more unsprung weight.
Larger wheels to accommodate bigger brakes.
Off the shelf tyres because of bigger wheels instead of specifically designed tyres.
Possibly reduced downforce in order to reduce drag to at least give a competitive top speed while lacking power.
That's quite a significant list...
Lack of hybrid power for acceleration.
Lack of braking (noticeably worse than GTs) despite next line.
Bigger mechanical brakes, so more unsprung weight.
Larger wheels to accommodate bigger brakes.
Off the shelf tyres because of bigger wheels instead of specifically designed tyres.
Possibly reduced downforce in order to reduce drag to at least give a competitive top speed while lacking power.
That's quite a significant list...
groomi said:
Has anybody attempted to quantify the compounded effect of not being able to run the hybrid system? To my knowledge, the associated issues added up to:
Lack of hybrid power for acceleration.
Lack of braking (noticeably worse than GTs) despite next line.
Bigger mechanical brakes, so more unsprung weight.
Larger wheels to accommodate bigger brakes.
Off the shelf tyres because of bigger wheels instead of specifically designed tyres.
Possibly reduced downforce in order to reduce drag to at least give a competitive top speed while lacking power.
That's quite a significant list...
True, but if they can fix the hybrid power then one, two, three, four, five and six of your list will fix themselves almost. They were hugely disadvantaged by not running the Hybrid at LM but if they can get it working then they should at least be competitive.Lack of hybrid power for acceleration.
Lack of braking (noticeably worse than GTs) despite next line.
Bigger mechanical brakes, so more unsprung weight.
Larger wheels to accommodate bigger brakes.
Off the shelf tyres because of bigger wheels instead of specifically designed tyres.
Possibly reduced downforce in order to reduce drag to at least give a competitive top speed while lacking power.
That's quite a significant list...
MissChief said:
True, but if they can fix the hybrid power then one, two, three, four, five and six of your list will fix themselves almost. They were hugely disadvantaged by not running the Hybrid at LM but if they can get it working then they should at least be competitive.
Lol, yes, because it's that simple.Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff